Controversial opinions about Bond films

1439440442444445707

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't mind it as much as some, but can easily see where the criticism comes from.

    Yeah, if you’re looking for Ronin, or QoS MKII (as some were expecting) this isn’t it.

    Is that gold standard (Ronin more than QOS to be fair) not what we should be looking for - and expecting - in a Bond film?

    Instead of basically an episode of Top Gear.

    'We're forever arguing here which supercar is the best to drive across a deserted European capital at night. Sick of our bickering producers told us to shut up and then sent us to Rome to find out.
    I was the first to arrive in the spectacular Aston Martin DB10...'

    My preference would’ve been for them to tear it up during the day, but I’m fine with it as it is. I have far more issues with the plane scene.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    The first part of the car chase is decent, if unremarkable (except for the jokes, which I enjoy), but I think the part along the bank of the river is a step up. More engaging and feels more dangerous.
  • Posts: 12,837
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I get your point about not wanting a carbon copy. I don't think they gave us that in the 60s, 70s or 80s. The films are quite distinct despite having tonal consistency. That's why they are such great repeat watches.

    This current regime hasn't got a clue how to do formula. Either that or they couldn't care less. One gets the impression it's beneath them. They're better than the series and its cinematic history. No, they want to create art. That's why they cast Craig, why they hired P&W and why they are on the current path. Brosnan was a remnant of Cubby's time, and when his contract was up, he was gone.


    I wouldn't say they couldn't care less about the Bond formula. Spectre was quite visibly their attempt at making a formula Bond film. But Sam Mendes couldn't help but inject 'poignant' drama where it was not needed. Imagine Spectre with all the whistles taken out. All the godawful fraternal drama which was so serious that they circled back around to being campy (and Austin Powers like). Imagine Spectre without the contrived callbacks to the previous films. Madeline as just a temporal Bond girl who becomes thirsty for Bond rather than the poorly executed this-is-the-one woman. Blofeld cackling like a maniac with Christoph at his hammiest. It would be stupendously better.
    It would have been better without brothergate, with a tighter script and with a lighter tone certainly, but I think it would have fallen into the 'by the numbers' overly predictable TND category.

    I don't think they know how to do formula. It appears to be foreign to them. Look at the action in SP for instance. Is there really anything there which we can hold up with the great scenes this series has delivered over the past 50+ years? Even the touted Hinx fight was a rehash of FRWL/LALD/TSWLM with similar moves.

    Only Campbell has been able to deliver that properly for them.

    I don't think their heart's in it.

    I'd have to agree with this I'm afraid. How else to explain the shocking script supervision on SP? And the obsession with other projects when they need to be concentrating on putting right the mistakes made with SP?

    But credit where it's due - the Hinx train fight is a lot better than the ones from LALD and TSWLM and right up there as one of the fights of the series. It is the only standout action scene though.

    I thought the PTS was really good too, CGI aside. And the car chase was a bit of a let down but the ending gave me goosebumps. Overall I thought Mendes stepped his game up with the action compared to SF. The PTS and the Hinx fight felt really dangerous and exciting in a way none of the action scenes in a way none of the ones in SF did imo.

    I didn't think that the action in SF was bad, it was really well shot and coreographed and everything and I love the finale, but it just felt a bit flat compared to Campbell's movies. But I thought Mendes did a much better job in SP.

    The plane chase was a bit of a dud though. Not sure if there's any truth to the Craig not wanting to ski rumours but their original plan was so much better imo. I think Newman didn't help either. When I read the leaks I pictured Bond coming into view in the plane being a big moment as the Bond theme kicks in, like when he crashes through the wall in the tank in GE. Instead we got, well, I can't even remember. I like the Mendes movies but why did he have to bring Newman with him.

    It's true. He didn't want to ski because he's not 23 anymore. It's all in the times interview with Mendes.

    Don't get this at all. All he'd have to do is some beginner level stuff at most right? Then the stuntman could do the rest. Brosnan fell over when he had to ski to the bottom of a slope and meet the press filming TWINE, but the chase still looks fine in the final film because they used stuntmen.

    I think it's good having an actor who likes doing as much of the stunts himself as possible, but not if he's so proud that when he realises he won't be able to do most of an action scene it gets changed. Just seems weird too. He didn't demand the crane jump be made smaller so he could do it himself did he. I genuinely don't see what the issue is. He must just have really not wanted to ski at all, but then some light skiing seems fairly tame in comparison to a fight scene with a guy as big as Dave Bautista doesn't it. Maybe he has a weird phobia or had a bad experience once or something.

    I thought it was partly due to his knee he damaged during filming.

    I read the leaks before he did his knee in and from what I remember it's pretty much the same, I think the plane chase was planned that way before filming started.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2018 Posts: 6,290
    How's being able to ski even relevant? There's no way he would be allowed to ski himself anyway for insurance purposes. When Laz nicked a pair of skis on the set and had a quick go he got a bollocking.
    Hear, hear! They could have CGIed Craig's head onto the stuntman's body as in SF. There's more to this story...
    The plane sequence is utterly inane.

    What is Bond trying to achieve? Crashing his plane into the cars and gambling that he and Madeline will survive seems a ridiculously random gamble. Why not just tail them?

    And then when he gormlessly knocks the wings off the whole rest of the sequence then relies on pure luck for Bond to succeed in his objective.

    And given no one would sign off on really flying a plane that close to some trees there's less real stuntwork in there than you are claiming.

    The start when the plane flies alongside the car is nice but it quickly goes downhill and of course Newman's insipid score hardly helps things along.

    I could not agree more. Why is Bond putting Madeleine's life, let alone his life, at such risk? This is a problem in the PTS as well. I remember a quote somewhere--Cubby or MGW--that "Bond would never put the public at danger."

    I maintain that Mendes never quite "got" Bond.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 727
    That's what you call mindless action. When character work takes a back seat and it's apparent the set piece was written seperately. It's very hard to meld character into action. What the characters would do in the heat of the moment that's true to them. Only few films get it right.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That's what you call mindless action. When character work takes a back seat and it's apparent the set piece was written seperately. It's very hard to meld character into action. What the characters would do in the heat of the moment that's true to them. Only few films get it right.
    There was a lot of apparent amateur hour in SP. Very expensive amateur hour.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 727
    The casino Royale footchase is a perfect example of character based action. Bond going through the partition while the other bloke leaps through the opening. The bombmaker making textbook landings while Bond keeps stumbling. Perfect. Every action is Bonds action. You aren't scratching your head throughout like in Spectre.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The casino Royale footchase is a perfect example of character based action. Bond going through the partition while the other bloke leaps through the opening. The bombmaker making textbook landings while Bond keeps stumbling. Perfect. Every action is Bonds action. You aren't scratching your head throughout like in Spectre.
    Very true. One learned a lot about Bond via that chase. He smashed through the drywall because he knew he could. He improvised to keep up with a faster and more agile opponent. It was a great way to provide insight into this new iteration through action and without exposition.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    The plane sequence is dumb and definitely not as good as the one in QOS but i dont know, something about just the pure insanity of a plane smashing into a car is exciting to me.
  • Posts: 19,339
    The plane sequence is dumb and definitely not as good as the one in QOS but i dont know, something about just the pure insanity of a plane smashing into a car is exciting to me.

    Its better than the totally naff and inexplicable 5 second parachute landing in QoS.


  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Hmm now we are getting into difficult territory. Which is better QOS plane sequence or SP plane sequence?

    Take out the freefall abortion which shits all over BJ Worth's grave - if he was dead - and I'd give it QOS for the dogfight. If we're counting the freefall as part of the sequence then I'd give it to SP.

    But the inescabple truth is that they both get brutally beaten to death by the OP and TLD sequences.

    1. TLD - Simply staggering stunt as a concept and in execution (apart from the shots of Dalton clearly three feet from a model on the studio floor)
    2. OP - Outrageous stunt which they could probably only pull off in a Rog film but nonetheless you can see the guys are actually, to quote Goninda's incredulity 'out there' doing it for real.



















  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    (These two are so far below the others I had to drop down into another post)

    3. QOS - Good dogfight with Bond using his brain in a crapper plane.
    4. SP - Bond not using his brain and nearly killing everyone before succeeding by pure chance.
  • Posts: 15,116
    @echo Is the plane-car chase and the PTS in SP any different in that regard than the tank chase in GE? He's pursuing a vehicle with a much bigger and overpowering one and did most definitely put civilians in danger.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    (These two are so far below the others I had to drop down into another post)

    3. QOS - Good dogfight with Bond using his brain in a crapper plane.
    4. SP - Bond not using his brain and nearly killing everyone before succeeding by pure chance.
    Agreed, but I'll also add that the QoS sequence is let down by pretty awful photography. Sometimes it's difficult for me to keep up with the little plane and where it's at. Additionally there is some naff CGI used for the plane towards the end when it's on a near vertical trajectory. It sort of reminds me of the sequence in DAD over the demilitarized zone when the plane is about to disintegrate.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @echo Is the plane-car chase and the PTS in SP any different in that regard than the tank chase in GE? He's pursuing a vehicle with a much bigger and overpowering one and did most definitely put civilians in danger.
    True. They are very similar types of sequences, right down to the damsel in distress. I suppose the difference is that Bond didn't directly put Natalya in danger by slamming the tank into her car, as he did with the plane in SP. I'm not a fan of either sequence really, although I realize the GE one is looked upon positively by most.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    (These two are so far below the others I had to drop down into another post)

    3. QOS - Good dogfight with Bond using his brain in a crapper plane.
    4. SP - Bond not using his brain and nearly killing everyone before succeeding by pure chance.
    Agreed, but I'll also add that the QoS sequence is let down by pretty awful photography. Sometimes it's difficult for me to keep up with the little plane and where it's at. Additionally there is some naff CGI used for the plane towards the end when it's on a near vertical trajectory. It sort of reminds me of the sequence in DAD over the demilitarized zone when the plane is about to disintegrate.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @echo Is the plane-car chase and the PTS in SP any different in that regard than the tank chase in GE? He's pursuing a vehicle with a much bigger and overpowering one and did most definitely put civilians in danger.
    True. They are very similar types of sequences, right down to the damsel in distress. I suppose the difference is that Bond didn't directly put Natalya in danger by slamming the tank into her car, as he did with the plane in SP. I'm not a fan of either sequence really, although I realize the GE one is looked upon positively by most.

    Bond is never out of control of his vehicle and I never thought for one minute that if he caught up with Natalya's car his plan was to drive over it.

    The civilians thing - well they're only Russians, the one nationality it's fine for everyone to be prejudiced about and slag off wily nily without any comment from the PC brigade.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    (These two are so far below the others I had to drop down into another post)

    3. QOS - Good dogfight with Bond using his brain in a crapper plane.
    4. SP - Bond not using his brain and nearly killing everyone before succeeding by pure chance.
    Agreed, but I'll also add that the QoS sequence is let down by pretty awful photography. Sometimes it's difficult for me to keep up with the little plane and where it's at. Additionally there is some naff CGI used for the plane towards the end when it's on a near vertical trajectory. It sort of reminds me of the sequence in DAD over the demilitarized zone when the plane is about to disintegrate.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @echo Is the plane-car chase and the PTS in SP any different in that regard than the tank chase in GE? He's pursuing a vehicle with a much bigger and overpowering one and did most definitely put civilians in danger.
    True. They are very similar types of sequences, right down to the damsel in distress. I suppose the difference is that Bond didn't directly put Natalya in danger by slamming the tank into her car, as he did with the plane in SP. I'm not a fan of either sequence really, although I realize the GE one is looked upon positively by most.

    Bond is never out of control of his vehicle and I never thought for one minute that if he caught up with Natalya's car his plan was to drive over it.

    The civilians thing - well they're only Russians, the one nationality it's fine for everyone to be prejudiced about and slag off wily nily without any comment from the PC brigade.
    Very true on both counts.
  • Posts: 15,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    (These two are so far below the others I had to drop down into another post)

    3. QOS - Good dogfight with Bond using his brain in a crapper plane.
    4. SP - Bond not using his brain and nearly killing everyone before succeeding by pure chance.
    Agreed, but I'll also add that the QoS sequence is let down by pretty awful photography. Sometimes it's difficult for me to keep up with the little plane and where it's at. Additionally there is some naff CGI used for the plane towards the end when it's on a near vertical trajectory. It sort of reminds me of the sequence in DAD over the demilitarized zone when the plane is about to disintegrate.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @echo Is the plane-car chase and the PTS in SP any different in that regard than the tank chase in GE? He's pursuing a vehicle with a much bigger and overpowering one and did most definitely put civilians in danger.
    True. They are very similar types of sequences, right down to the damsel in distress. I suppose the difference is that Bond didn't directly put Natalya in danger by slamming the tank into her car, as he did with the plane in SP. I'm not a fan of either sequence really, although I realize the GE one is looked upon positively by most.

    I need to rewatch the sequence in GE but just driving that tank is a risk in itself of hurting her. And I'm not trying to defend any sequence but why one is praised while the other two are criticized even though they are in essence similar is beyond me.

    @TheWizardOfIce In an interview I read back at the time, Martin Campbell said that he added a shot of police officers getting off their wrecked cars because Bond could not be accused of causing the death of civilians even by accident, so Russian or not there was that concern. Granted Bond is no Popeye Doyle but he does not inhabit the same movieverse than Doyle either so the magic hand of destiny allows Bond to get away with some morally questionable actions.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    There's never any chance of Bond hurting Natalya himself in GE - the closest he ever gets to the car is about 100 yards away.

    Now if you're going to start down the health and safety route of 'Because Bond is chasing them that forces Ouromov's driver to take more risks' that's a different debate entirely that leads us to the current PC shackled police force we have that has to let criminals escape if they drive too fast as it's too dangerous to carry on. But then eliminating any risk to a Bond girl at all would see Bond hauled up before the health and safety Nazis as far back as DN when he allowed Honey to be contaminated with radiation because he failed to take preventative measures such as suits and radiation shields despite the fact he knew the area was contaminated due to Steangeays rock samples so should have been carrying such kit with him.

    Anyway what is indisputable when comparing the GE tank sequence and the SP plane sequence is:

    1. Bond never puts the Bond girl in danger through his direct actions in GE. In SP he risks her life several times in an outcome he has no control over through his decicision to deliberately ram the car.
    2. The risk to Bond's own life is minimal in GE given when he smashes into a brick wall he is surrounded by a steel box for protection. In SP the risks he takes are excessively foolhardy bordering on the suicidal.
    3. The GE sequence is better because it relies on Bonds skill at the controls of his vehicle rather trusting to luck he doesn't end up in a fireball (not to mention lack of control of his vehicle unless you're claiming he deliberately intended to turn his vehicle into an out of control toboggan by knocking the wings off on purpose?)
    4. The Bond theme playing automatically makes an action sequence better than some Thomas Newman lift music in the background.
    5. The stuntwork is infinitely better.
    6. The SP sequence (and this is an important point to note) is (edit).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Anyway what is indisputable when comparing the GE tank sequence and the SP plane sequence is:

    1. Bond never puts the Bond girl in danger through his direct actions in GE. In SP he risks her life several times in an outcome he has no control over through his decicision to deliberately ram the car.
    2. The risk to Bond's own life is minimal in GE given when he smashes into a brick wall he is surrounded by a steel box for protection. In SP the risks he takes are excessively foolhardy bordering on the suicidal.
    3. The GE sequence is better because it relies on Bonds skill at the controls of his vehicle rather trusting to luck he doesn't end up in a fireball (not to mention lack of control of his vehicle unless you're claiming he deliberately intended to turn his vehicle into an out of control toboggan by knocking the wings off on purpose?)
    4. The Bond theme playing automatically makes an action sequence better than some Thomas Newman lift music in the background.
    5. The stuntwork is infinitely better.
    6. The SP sequence (and this is an important point to note) is (edit).
    I can't disagree with any of this, and in particular the final comment truly drives the point home in case there was ever any doubt. There were several 'head shake' moments for me in the theatre upon first viewing of SP, and this entire sequence was definitely one of them.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 17,753
    bondjames wrote: »
    Anyway what is indisputable when comparing the GE tank sequence and the SP plane sequence is:

    1. Bond never puts the Bond girl in danger through his direct actions in GE. In SP he risks her life several times in an outcome he has no control over through his decicision to deliberately ram the car.
    2. The risk to Bond's own life is minimal in GE given when he smashes into a brick wall he is surrounded by a steel box for protection. In SP the risks he takes are excessively foolhardy bordering on the suicidal.
    3. The GE sequence is better because it relies on Bonds skill at the controls of his vehicle rather trusting to luck he doesn't end up in a fireball (not to mention lack of control of his vehicle unless you're claiming he deliberately intended to turn his vehicle into an out of control toboggan by knocking the wings off on purpose?)
    4. The Bond theme playing automatically makes an action sequence better than some Thomas Newman lift music in the background.
    5. The stuntwork is infinitely better.
    6. The SP sequence (and this is an important point to note) is (edit).
    I can't disagree with any of this, and in particular the final comment truly drives the point home in case there was ever any doubt. There were several 'head shake' moments for me in the theatre upon first viewing of SP, and this entire sequence was definitely one of them.

    +1! SP really bothered me, and still does.
  • Posts: 15,116
    The tank chase may be better technically what I'm saying is that is still a highly volatile situation that could easily have civilians hurt. Such chases turned into demolition derbies are a common trope in action movies and we can debate the execution (nothing beats the one in The French Connection IMO) but criticizing it for its risk on civilian lives is a bit pointless.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 16,162
    I think the GE tank chase works for the most part. It's fun.....but pales in comparison to the legend that is the firetruck chase in AVTAK.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The GE tank chase is one horrible scene in a long line in said film.
  • Posts: 7,417
    The GE tank chase is one horrible scene in a long line in said film.

    Wasn't impressed with it either. It's just a tank with obstacles placed in front of it! It's not particularly well constructed chase scene. I probably it would prefer the plane sequence from SP. I like the fact it was bonkers what Bond was trying to do and Bond playing chicken with a convoy was more exciting than a tank simply crashing through one object after another ad nausem. Certainly not the greatest chase set piece, but I do enjoy it. Perhaps a second unit director like Dan Bradley would have done more with it!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The GE tank chase is one horrible scene in a long line in said film.

    I like the film (flirts with my Top Ten) overall, but I agree on the tank chase; I never got the appeal.
    Not the highlight of the film for me either. Not by a long shot. I much prefer what immediately precedes and comes after it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Brosnan is as cool in a tank as Dukakis .
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Very well played @Thunderfinger
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Brosnan is as cool in a tank as Dukakis .
    :))
  • Posts: 15,116
    I like the tank chase but find it overrated. For me it is a generic demolition derby in an action movie. It's fine but too much of it looks like they are trying to be cool for coolness sake. It works with the overall tone of the movie and the Bond-centrist approach though.

    Other controversial opinion: Spottiswoode was betrayed by poor material otherwise he might have been praised as much as Campbell.
  • Posts: 1,917
    I thought I was alone in not being impressed with the GE tank chase. It always felt just like putting Bond into a vehicle he's never been in just to smash things up in it. Destruction for destruction's sake, basically. It feels more like The Blues Brothers than Bond.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Other controversial opinion: Spottiswoode was betrayed by poor material otherwise he might have been praised as much as Campbell.

    Can't disagree here since I like TND more than GE. Sure it's a YOLT/TSWLM derivative, but there's so much less personal baggage involved. Bond on a mission to save the world without being scolded for being out of place or facing an old friend turned enemy. Best action of the Brosnan era far as I'm concerned.
Sign In or Register to comment.